Washington, D.C.-The Minority Staff of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works released a report today titled, "Consensus' Exposed: The CRU Controversy." The report covers the controversy surrounding emails and documents released from the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit (CRU). It examines the extent to which those emails and documents affect the scientific work of the UN's IPCC, and how revelations of the IPCC's flawed science impacts the EPA's endangerment finding for greenhouse gases.

The report finds that some of the scientists involved in the CRU controversy violated ethical principles governing taxpayer-funded research and possibly federal laws. In addition, the Minority Staff believes the emails and accompanying documents seriously compromise the IPCC-based "consensus" and its central conclusion that anthropogenic emissions are inexorably leading to environmental catastrophes.

In its examination of the controversy, the Minority Staff found that the scientists:

- Obstructed release of damaging data and information;

- Manipulated data to reach preconceived conclusions;

- Colluded to pressure journal editors who published work questioning the climate science "consensus"; and

- Assumed activist roles to influence the political process.

"This EPW Minority Report shows that the CRU controversy is about far more than just scientists who lack interpersonal skills, or a little email squabble," said Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.), Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works. "It's about unethical and potentially illegal behavior by some the world's leading climate scientists.

"The report also shows the world's leading climate scientists acting like political scientists, with an agenda disconnected from the principles of good science. And it shows that there is no consensus-except that there are significant gaps in what scientists know about the climate system. It's time for the Obama Administration to recognize this. Its endangerment finding for greenhouse gases rests on bad science. It should throw out that finding and abandon greenhouse gas regulation under the Clean Air Act-a policy that will mean fewer jobs, higher taxes and economic decline." ###

The report is now out with all the facts for people to read and judge for themselves how some of the climate scientists not only violated ethics but also the fact there was huge disagreements in the climatology community that were never made public.

After all these years and the ridicule Progressive Democrats like Al Gore, Nancy Pelosi, Barbara Boxer, and others spewed at Senator Inhofe, he has been proven correct.

For years we have heard him refer to the data as 'junk science' that some of climate scientists were publishing. With no Peer Review, there was no one to either back up or refute their claims except a few scientists willing to stand up.

The media ran with the Al Gore Global Warming mantra and never considered the fact the the data might not have been correct -- never crossed their minds. Anyone who dared doubt Gore and the Global Warming agenda were considered people who didn't care about the environment and out of touch with reality. When, in fact, it was the Global Warming crowd who were out of touch with reality and costs Governments around the World billions.

Americans should be thanking Senator Inhofe who never gave up the fight and in the end was proven correct -- 'junk science' was used to support the political agenda of Al Gore's Global Warming that the Nobel Committee saw fit to award him a Nobel Prize. Those Nobel Prize Committees might want to rethink who they are awarding these prizes with monetary awards after the last few years.

Our Senator was correct all along — it was ‘Junk Science’ which Inhofe has made part of the vocabulary when talking about Al Gore and Global Warming.

Please ping the OK Freepers!

We sent Jim Inhofe back to the US Senate to do this type of work in spite of the fact that Soros sent in two consultants and tons of money to Andrew Rice to defeat Jim Inhofe in 2008. Red State Oklahoma came through against Obama and Rice!

I just finished reading this. I would encourage everybody to take the time to do so. It is one hell of an indictment on the sloppiness and lack of scientific method that these criminals (for that is what they are, in my opinion) are guilty of.

13
posted on 02/24/2010 9:09:47 AM PST
by carolinablonde
("The Constitution protects all of us, not just those on the left." - Gov. Sarah Palin)

The following is Part 2 in our series of excerpts from the Senate EPW Minority Report, titled, "Consensus' Exposed: The CRU Controversy." Here the excerpts focus on two points from the report. First is the distinction made between "utterly politicized scientists," such as those at the center of the CRU controversy, and scientists committed to disinterested, objective science in the field of climatology (and all other fields), who deserve praise and support. It points to the importance of openness and transparency in practicing good science-and shows how those principles were, at times, ignored or flouted. Second, it shows how the EPA relied heavily on the IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report to make its endangerment finding for greenhouse gases. The IPCC's report was marred by errors and exaggerations. EPA failed to do its own independent review of the IPCC's science, so its finding is flawed, and EPA should dispense with it and start over again.

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.